3.12 - UNITY (No. 2)

UNITY (No. 2)

One week ago tonight I began the study of that institution established by the Lord Jesus Christ. Two talks were devoted to its study and history. As, doubtless, all of you know, I have followed the history of that departure from the New Testament order which resulted in the establishment of the greatest religious ecclesiasticism the world has ever known. I also pursued the study of the Reformation and the rise of the various denominations now prominent in our land.

After that I turned to the study of another movement known as the Restoration.

You have followed patiently. Some of you, doubtless, have been startled at some of the announcements I have made, but I believe you cannot doubt the correctness of them when you take the time to turn to history’s page and there search as to whether or not the things spoken be true. And may I beg of you that before you pass adverse judgment, and evidence a feeling of unkindness, that you go into some of the libraries, delve into the history of these things and thus see for yourselves whether or not I have stated the facts. If I have stated facts, you owe it to yourself to accept them. If not, you need to tell me just what is true and thus prevent my repetition along these lines. This afternoon attention was directed to the oneness, unity, that ought to prevail among professed Christians. We had a very fine audience, but tonight the attendance is larger by several hundred. I appreciate your presence beyond my power to express it. I just regret that there is not sufficient seating capacity for all of you to be as comfortable as I would like. But, knowing you as I do, I believe that you will be patient even though many have to stand.

Let me read, as all introduction, Ephesians 4:1-6 : "I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that you walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called. With all lowliness and meekness, with long suffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit, in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."

There are seven unities manifest in that connection. I would hardly know how to begin to make all argument to him who would deny the teachings of God’s Word respecting the unity of the body of Christ. On every page where the matter is mentioned at all, that paramount idea stands out boldly and emphatically. There is one God. Of course, there is but one. There is one Lord, only one. There is one faith—just one. There is one body—but one.

Jesus Christ established but one church. Our Lord shed his blood to purchase but one church. He is tonight the head of but one church. His spirit dwells in but one body, which is the church. That thing is settled and nobody but a rank, blatant infidel would dare deny the statements thus made. In the light of that, what will you and I say, when on the plains of eternal judgment we come to stand, as all apology for the variety and the great number of different churches extant in this land? Somebody is responsible for their existence. I ask you, as a dying man to dying men and women, did the Lord organize about 200 different churches in this land? I am certain that you say, "No." Well, who did? I believe that I can plead, "not guilty." If I know myself, tonight, I have never tried to organize a church. I never expect to, and I do not want to be responsible for preaching or practicing anything that tends to bar or hinder a 100 per cent fellowship in the church bought and built by Christ.

It is one of the most difficult matters that I have ever tried, to get the conception of the church of God that I have in mind before my friends. It is hard to make them understand that the church about which I talk is not one of the denominations.

People ask why I don’t give more concern to the other denominations? Allow me to say, I am not a member of a denomination. I don’t want to be. I never made one step looking to that end in my life. I am against denominations, not because I hate them, nor that they are wrong per se, but because of the fact that they are of human origin and God knows nothing about such. Do you believe, friends, that when Jesus Christ said, "Upon this rock I will build my church," he was talking about a denomination? Is that your conception of his statement?

Now, if that was a denomination, I want to ask, "Which one was it?" Do you know that there isn’t a preacher in Nashville who will dare name that thing promised by Him and call it a denomination? You have as great men as dwell upon the earth, as learned and as honorable in all respects, but they know better than that. So do we all.

What shall we say about it? When Paul said, "Husbands, love your wives even as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it," I stop and ask, "Was Paul talking about a denomination?’ With one accord we all say, "No."

Now, this question: Is it possible for you and me to become a member of that church concerning which Christ said, "Upon this rock I will build my church"? Can I become a member of that? If so, I would not be a member of any denomination.

If I know myself, that is the only institution on earth with which I want to be affiliated.

I do not claim to be a member of any kind of all organization except that very one.

Now you may think that I am not a member of it. Maybe not, but I am surely not a member of anything else. When I begin to talk about the church, my friends look upon it and seem to think it is a denomination.

Let me try to present the matter after this sort of all illustration. Suppose that 2,000 years ago there was all organization known as baseball. In a book all things connected with it were recorded. There is the outline of the diamond, a field, the various numbers required, the rules, regulations and everything governing that institution. The game was played according to its rules for a long, long time, but with the passing of the years that organization disbanded, the book of rules was laid aside and practically buried for a thousand years.

Suppose then, by some chance, you and I found that very same book and began the study of it. Finally we make a plat upon some field exactly like the diamond specified in it, select our right number of performers, lay down exactly the same rules and regulations, and start the game according to original specifications.

Question: Is that the same thing that was practiced 2,000 years ago? What would you call this game that we have now re-inaugurated? Would it be some phase of baseball, some department? Or would it not be the identical thing restored upon this earth? Of course, it would.

Beloved, that is my conception of the Church of God. I believe that by the Holy Spirit all organization known as the Church of God, the Church of the First Born, was planted upon this earth. I think that members were initiated into the privilege of the same, and that before it ceased its operations there was a book of rules giving all the details regarding it, the terms of induction, the principles governing its operations, etc. But with the passing of the years there was the gradual fading away until at last all the players and all the performers were largely forgotten. There came a time when you could not find all institution like that anywhere. The very book of rules governing it was wholly in seclusion, and kept as a matter of privacy. The years sped on, but by and by the old book of rules was found; men delved into it; they began to understand the nature of its organization, and to blend together, precisely as the book of rules suggested, and, therefore, set up housekeeping again. They were governed, regulated and ruled according to the simplicity of the old Book.

Question: Is that the same institution?

I believe it is. And that is the principle, fundamental, of the great Restoration Movement, of which I have spoken.

It demands and it has taught that the very central thought was the unity of the people of God upon this earth. They looked over the field of denominationalism; they believed that many men and women had obeyed the gospel; and after so doing, had gone and united with some kind of a religious fraternity, the origin of which was purely human, and a knowledge of which is not even mentioned in the Book of God. The Restorers sounded the invitation, and bade people come out of those things purely human in nature and stand together upon the original platform. They urged that all be governed by the original rules, and have the assurance that it is the church of the Lord Jesus Christ, restored upon this earth in its ancient simplicity and primitive purity. The afternoon talk was devoted to the one thought, namely: "Division is Wrong." God demands that His people stand as a solid phalanx. Such little progress has been made that, sometimes, it is really discouraging. The army of the Lord is divided into about 200 different detachments, each one striving against the other. A spirit of jealousy and denominational rivalry prevails, while the forces of His Satanic Majesty march solidly under their black banner. The condition is a lamentable one indeed.

There are many things upon which all denominations are agreed. For instance, the existence of a God, the belief in the virgin birth of His Son, the reality of the Holy Spirit, and the inspiration of God’s word. In spite of agreement on these we are divided. Whether hopelessly so, or not, only time can tell.

I cannot now mention all of the distinctions, and matters that differentiate, but I take the time to note some of the outstanding things upon which, if we could agree, it might be possible for us to come together and adjust all minor differences. If such were accomplished we could raise aloft the blood-stained banner, and openly defy all skepticism,, infidelity, and even atheism, that curses the earth even at this hour.

What are some of those things over which we are divided? I mention them after this order. First, the religious world is divided over the question of creeds, disciplines, confessions of faith, etc.; second, over what constitutes valid, legitimate and acceptable baptism.

Third, we are divided again over the very names that Christians should wear.

Fourth, we are further divided over what constitutes acceptable worship. I stop with these four.

Ladies and gentlemen, is it possible for it to be possible to bring about a solution of item No. 1, and the world stand together, joying and rejoicing over a unity respecting a creed or confession of faith?

Now I want to proceed on this principle, and I do it not only because duty demands it of me, but because I owe it to you. I shall not ask you to make any sacrifice of faith or to give up any principle whatsoever. I tell you candidly that I would not do that myself, and I have never yet knowingly asked any man to do that which I would not under similar circumstances be persuaded in my own judgment to do. But I want you to get this distinction. There is a difference between matters of faith and matters of opinion. Faith is that which comes by hearing God’s word. It is the acceptance of evidence coming from holy men who spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. To make that just as emphatic as I can, let me say that whenever I tell you I believe a thing, I have put myself under obligation to turn to God’s book and read the evidence from which that faith comes. And it follows that if I cannot find the evidence and the testimony in the book of God, I do not believe it at all. It was merely a matter of opinion. The world, tonight, is divided on the question of opinion. When you ask of me to give up my opinion about a thing, you have asked nothing unreasonable nothing but that ought to be considered in the light of a desire to banish division. So, friends, let us not hesitate to ask that opinions be given up. I think this is absolutely necessary, but I am not going to ask any man to give up one iota or one syllable of faith that comes from the book of God.

How many creeds are there in the land today? I have never counted them, but it is said that there are about 1,600, or possibly more. At first, doubtless, you ask, how can these things be, if there are not more than two hundred different denominations? Friends, it is after this manner. Different denominations have a multiplicity of creeds. They are issued at regular and stated intervals so that, with the passing years, each denomination has a number, no two of which are exactly alike.

Pile up all the denominations, with their revisions, amendments and continued creed-making business, and possibly it reaches around 1,600, or more.

Question: Is it possible for the world to unite upon any creed that man has ever written?

I believe the very asking carries the answer in the negative. Without being unkind or discourteous to any soul, let me suggest, for instance, that here is the Episcopalian Prayer Book, written by men scholarly, earnest and sincere. It is a great production. It has passed the British Parliament; it stands out hoary with age, and appeals unto humanity almost everywhere. Would you Methodists, Baptists and Presbyterians, who would really and sincerely love to see unity brought to pass, be willing to lay down your respective books, and, for the sake of unity, accept the prayer book of the Episcopalians? I know your answer. I would not do it, either.

Well, why not? Let us fancy a Presbyterian, just a minute. He could say, "Mr. Episcopalian, you are asking of me all unreasonable thing. I grant that you have in your midst learned men and scholarly men who wrote that prayer book, but let me tell you that we Presbyterians had as much right to make our confession of faith as you fellows did your prayer book. Therefore, I will not give up mine, which I admit is human, to accept yours, which stands on no higher ground."

Brother Methodist, what are you saying?

Hear him. "Mr. Episcopalian, while I borrowed my discipline largely from your prayer book, yet I do not aim to give it up, and accept yours instead. Mine is as good as yours." And, indeed, it is. Thus the thought continues.

Let me say, friends, that it is a matter of impossibility to bring the different denominations together by the acceptance of any human creed or discipline or prayer book the world has ever known.

"Well," says one, "Brother Hardeman, why don’t you try them with your creed?" That is just what I aim to do.

"But," says one, "do you have a creed?" Of course I do.

"Well, have you got a discipline?"

Certainly so.

"Well, have you a confession of faith?"

Yes, indeed.

"Do you have a book of rules governing the church?"

Certainly, and I am glad, tonight, to give answer to these questions that are sometimes on the lips of anxious inquirers.

Friends, the Bible is my creed. The word "creed" comes from that which signifies faith, belief. I am glad to tell you I believe God’s book from lid to lid. It is my discipline. It is my confession of faith. It is my prayer book. It is my church manual, church directory in all of the affairs of life. I have never subscribed, nor have my brethren, to any human product on the earth. Any man who says to the contrary, speaks ignorantly regarding that concerning which he ought to be informed.

Friends, I, therefore, without timidity or reservation at all, come to you tonight and submit that the only way possible for the world to get together on the subject of a creed is to cut loose from, throw away, and bid good-bye to all those written by men, and accept the Bible and the Bible alone as its only rule of faith and practice.

During Gipsy Smith’s first tabernacle meeting he said that if he had his way about it, he would gather every creed and put them all in one pile, saturate them, and strike a match that would send them into forgetfulness. I can most heartily join in such a sentiment.

I do not say that with bitterness toward the creed, nor to any man who has subscribed. I believe, before God and in your presence, that they are largely responsible for the divided state, and a tearing asunder of people who otherwise might possibly stand together, and thus glorify the God of our being. Hence I submit the Bible as the one book and only one that ought to be recognized by mortal man.

Now, somebody may chance to say, "Mr. Hardeman, you don’t go by the Bible." That is not the question tonight. My practice is not under discussion just now. I am talking about what the world must accept. If I haven’t done it, all the worse for me. The old question of baptism has agitated the mass of the people for lo, these hundreds of years. It can never be outworn, and it never grows old, because fellowship in no church, except the Quakers, can be had only through what the world calls the rite of baptism. In this country there are three things presented for the study and acceptance of mankind. Here they are: sprinkling, pouring, immersion. On those three things the world stands divided. How can unity be brought to pass? Can the world unite on the practice of sprinkling? Our Roman Catholic friends, the Lutherans, the Methodists, the Presbyterians, and some others, could without any sacrifice of faith. They believe that sprinkling is acceptable. But what about the great eastern Catholic Church? What about the Baptist Church, with its seventeen different branches? They could never agree to accept sprinkling. The brotherhood with whom I stand could not conscientiously unite with any people on the practice of sprinkling for baptism. It would be, to us, hypocritical in the extreme. Could the world unite on pouring for baptism? Such all effort would prove all absolute failure. My friends, if this world ever gets together on this item, immersion and that alone must become the universal practice. But some one says, "Brother Hardeman, you promised that you would not ask us to give up any matter of faith." So I did, and to that promise, I’ll he true.

"Mr. Roman Catholic, do you believe that immersion in water, to a penitent believer, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is scriptural baptism?" What do you think he will say? He must answer, "Yes."

"Well, could you accept immersion then, and not give up any matter of faith, or any principle?"

"Sure I could. I think sprinkling will do just as well, but that is all opinion, and I would not lose anything to accept immersion—in fact, I believe that is the meaning of the word ’baptize.’"

Friends, he does not have to give up any principle in accepting immersion.

I next appeal to my Presbyterian friends (and I am glad to number them by the scores). "Do you think that immersion to a proper candidate is scriptural and acceptable baptism?"

"Why, of course, I do."

"Well, then, would you have to sacrifice any matter of faith to accept it?" "Certainly not." He thinks sprinkling will do just as well and is more convenient, but he doesn’t question immersion.

Now, for the sake of! unity, why not give up that which is in doubt in the minds of some, and walk by faith, and by that which is conceded by every scholar on earth?

Ask our good Methodist friends, "Would you have to sacrifice anything in order to be immersed?" Of course not. For the Methodist Discipline says that if the candidate demands it, the preacher shall immerse him. Hence, it is a doctrine of the Methodist Church to practice immersion if they can’t get by otherwise. So then, friends, there is no sacrifice, and if the world wanted that unity, and were willing to give up those things which are in doubt, we would soon see such a coming together of the forces of the Lord Jesus Christ as would electrify the city of Nashville, and from it there would radiate a wonderful influence that would be felt all over this broad land. Is immersion in doubt? Absolutely not. Does anybody want to deny that immersion is scriptural? Not one. Where is the question mark? It is after sprinkling and pouring, and not after immersion at all. In this act there is safety, soberness and soundness of principle. Immersion is all act of faith. The next point I want to mention is this: we are divided in this country as were the people at Corinth. Instead of wearing the name of Christ alone, many of them were honoring Paul, Apollos and Peter by wearing their names. Paul condemned them most Beverly. We are doing similarly in the state of Tennessee tonight. If you had asked them were they not Christians, they would, in all probability, have said, "Yes." But while they proposed to be Christians, they exercised the right and the liberty to wear the names of Paul, Apollos and Cephas. Unanswerable arguments were made against such party names. In spite of such lessons, a parallel exists among us today.

One man says, "I am wearing the name of Luther."

Ask him, "Are you a Christian?"

"Oh, yes, I am a Christian, but I propose to wear the name of Luther."

Another says, "I propose to wear the name of John the Baptist."

"Aren’t you a Christian?"

"Yes, sir."

Thus the world continues and division abounds because of such. Will I be out of order, will I be unkind if I say, as did Paul to those at Corinth, "You are carnal and walk as men"? When the Pharisees brought to the Master a piece of money, they asked him: "Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar or not?"

He said: "Show me the tribute money," and they brought unto him a penny.

He asked the question: "Whose is the image and whose is the superscription?" Christ determined to what government that piece of money belonged by two things: namely, first, the very material that went into its makeup, and, second, the stamp or superscription it bore.

Friends, you want two things to be characteristic of you. First, you must be molded in heaven’s mint, with all sin driven away, and evil and hypocrisy burned out of your life. You want to come forth as a newborn babe, clean and spotless as the driven snow; second, you want heaven’s stamp impressed upon your brow, so that it may be known to passersby exactly where you belong, and whose you are. That unity for which Christ prayed can only be made possible by every child of God wearing the name of Christ and that alone.

If I were to ask you to give up your respective denominational names, and let us all be Campbellite, I am certain that you would rebel. While Alexander Campbell was a great man, you do not aim to wear his name, on the ground that he did not taste death for you, and into his name you were not baptized. Therefore, you would kindly and positively refuse my request, and I could not blame you. The same is true of every other name outside of that whereby man must be saved. If you reach heaven you have got to become a Christian. But you do not have to become a Baptist to go to heaven, and the Baptist preacher will tell you so himself. You don’t have to become a Methodist to reach heaven. You don’t have to be a Presbyterian to walk the snow-white streets of the city of our God, but you do have to be a Christian. Therefore, it follows that Christianity is one thing, denominationalism is another thing, and a useless thing, in the sight of high heaven. Therefore, for the sake of unity, let us cut loose from every name other than the name of Christ.

Mrs. Hardeman, who chances to be present, honors me by wearing my name. It would not set well at all with me if she, being my Wife, wanted to wear someone else’s name. I would rebel. I would say, "My dear woman, if you expect me to love you, to care for you, to provide for you, and protect you, just leave off the other fellow’s name, at least until I am buried." Friends, that is the way we feel about it. The children of God are married unto Jesus Christ. He is the bridegroom; Christians are the bride. I hold that the child of God has no right to look to Jesus as the husband, and then go around this country wearing somebody else’s name.

I think, if Mrs. Hardeman loves me as she ought, she does not want to wear someone else’s name. And I am not afraid to say that if you and I love the Lord Jesus Christ as we ought, we will not want to wear any other name. Therefore, it is a matter of most serious concern. Are we honoring the husband? Are we honoring the bridegroom in his absence? Christ is away now preparing that house not made with hands. After awhile he will return to call the bride to himself. Will he find her wearing another’s name? Let’s be true to him, whose we are and honor him by making prominent his name alone.

Let us tear down our denominational fences, get rid of those things that pen us off into parties, and stand once more as a unit. But again: is it possible for us to come together on the question of worship and no one have to sacrifice a matter of faith?

Consider the following. If a congregation simply teaches God’s word and preaches the Bible, can’t you join in with them without any hesitancy or compunctions of conscience whatsoever? If they earnestly pray unto our Father, either kneeling in humility, or standing with bowed heads and humble hearts, can’t you join in that? When they come together around the Lord’s table, which is the Lord’s supper, eat of the simple bread and drink of the simple fruit of the vine, surely you can have a part with no sacrifice of principle. When it comes to the contributing of your means, do it with simplicity. Simply put your hand into your pocket and give according to how you have been prospered. Give without any great tooting of the horns, or sounding of the alarm, or any claptrap method. Give in a straightforward scriptural way, in the spirit of the gospel of Christ. Everybody can join in that, without the sacrifice of a single principle. When you come to the sounding of His praises, all can do it by singing and making melody in their hearts unto God. There is nothing objectionable; there is nothing that tends to drive you from participation therein. You can do that honestly, conscientiously, believing that you are doing just what God demands. On these matters there can be unity. But when you introduce the societies of men, and the mechanical machinery that some want to bring into the church; when you begin to burn incense, and to light candles, and to wash hands, then you bring in that for which there is no authority, and you ought not to expect the world to accept such, and upon it absolutely agree. The primitive disciples had but one organization, viz.: the church bought with the blood of our Lord.

They carried the gospel, through this organization, into all the earth, and unto the uttermost parts of the world. If this program is not sober, sane and sound, big enough, broad enough, and wide enough for every man to occupy, without the sacrifice of any matter of faith, tell me that wherein it is lacking, and, if possible, I will supplement it. Suggest to me wherein it oversteps heaven’s law, and I’ll use the pruning knife and pare off that which is superfluous and unauthorized by the God of heaven.

Upon the terms of admission into the family of God, the world can also agree. You think it is right for men to believe in the Christ. Everybody in Nashville so does, except our infidel friends. You think a man ought to turn from sin, and face toward a higher, nobler and better life. You believe that men ought to acknowledge the Christ with their lips. There is not one present but who says penitent believers ought to be baptized.

You may not believe as I do regarding the purposes of baptism, but we are together upon the importance of submitting to God’s will, and surely this is a part of it. If you can accept the platform as thus announced, I bid you do so now. I want you to take God at His word; believe what He says; become and be what He requires; live as He directs, and trust Him for the fulfillment of every promise.